coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.
5.  On 24 October 2000 the applicant filed an action with the Trenčín District Court. He claimed compensation for damage from an insurance company.
6.  On 30 November 2001 the Trenčín District Court dismissed the action. On 22 March 2002, upon an appeal by the applicant, the case file was transferred to the Trenčín Regional Court. On 24 October 2002 the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the decision. It remitted the case to the District Court on 15 November 2002.
7.  On 14 January 2004 the District Court judge fixed the next hearing for February 2004. On 4 February 2004 the applicant requested additional evidence to be taken and five witnesses to be heard.
8.  In April 2004 and February and March 2005 the District Court held three hearings and ordered an expert opinion.
9.  On 10 May 2005 the appointed expert asked the District Court for additional documents which he considered necessary for the elaboration of an expert opinion. On 15 November 2005 the District Court informed him that it did not have the requested documents.
10.  In June 2006 the District Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment on 4 July 2006.
11.  On 9 November 2006 the Trenčín Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, partly upheld and partly quashed the first-instance judgment.
12.  In March 2007 the District Court held a hearing. It dismissed the applicant’s claim at a hearing held on 3 April 2007.
13.  On 9 August 2007 the Trenčín Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, upheld the first-instance judgment (the Regional Court’s judgment became final on 15 August 2007).
14.  On 27 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Trenčín District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
15.  The applicant had complained exclusively about the proceedings before the Trenčín District Court. The Constitutional Court had regard to the fact that the time taken by the Regional Court to decide the appeal (8 months) had prolonged the proceedings.
16.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was to some extent complex from the factual but not the legal point of view. However, the factual complexity of the case could not justify the length of the proceedings. The applicant’s conduct had not contributed to their length. Delays imputable to the Trenčín District Court had exceeded 13 months.
17.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) – the equivalent of 259 euros at that time – as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Trenčín District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs (176 euros).
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Spišské Podhradie. The applicant introduced his application through the intermediary of an advocate, Mrs Elena Smiková. Subsequently, the applicant corresponded with the Registry himself.
5.  On 4 February 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Spišská Nová Ves District Court. He challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from his employment.
6.  On 22 December 2005 the district court dismissed the action. The Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 29 January 2007 (final on 14 March 2007).
7.  On 23 August 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
8.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex and that the applicant’s conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. Delays imputable to the district court totalled 10 years and 8 months.
9.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 90,000 (the equivalent of 2,328 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Spišská Nová Ves District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs and avoid any further delay in the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kraków.
5.  On 19 June 2000 the Katowice District Prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of drug trafficking, unlawful possession of firearms and membership of an organised criminal gang. There were 36 accused and 147 witnesses in the case.
6.  On 20 February 2001 the Katowice District Court held a first hearing in the case. From that date to 30 March 2004 the court scheduled two hundred hearings in the case. During that period of time the court held one hundred thirty and two hearings.
7.  On 13 February 2008 the Katowice District Court gave judgment in the case convicting the applicant. The applicant appealed.
8.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Katowice Regional Court.
9.  On 31 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He also claimed just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000.
10. On 20 July 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the length complaint. Although the court found that the proceedings had lasted a very long time, it concluded that this had not amounted to an “excessive length” as defined by the 2004 Act. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the court had scheduled 58 hearings in 2001, 66 in 2002, 73 in 2003, 64 in 2004 and 85 in 2005. However, several hearings had had to be postponed because defence lawyers, co-accused and witnesses were absent and assessors and judges were ill.
11. On 19 October 2006 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal.
12. On 31 January 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal again dismissed the length complaint. The court found that the proceedings had been handled properly and the delays had been attributable to other persons and unexpected circumstances rather than to the court. The Court of Appeal pointed out that since July 2005 the court had held over 30 hearings and over 30 hearings had had to be postponed because defence lawyers and experts had been absent, assessors, a judge and certain co-accused had been ill, renovation works had been carried out in the hearing room and there had been a shortage of police officers to convey the accused to the court. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the proceedings were of a complex character and noted that the court had taken many appropriate steps in order to speed them up.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Lubiąż.
5.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant was remanded in custody. The grounds for this decision are unknown, since the applicant has not produced a copy of the order.
6.  On 7 November 2006 the Swiebodzin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended the applicant’s detention. On the same day the court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against him. The court held that the applicant at the time of the commission of the offence had been incapable of recognising its significance or controlling his conduct because of his mental illness. The applicant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia (paranoid subtype).
7.  On 1 October 2007 the applicant was placed in a mental hospital.
8.  On 22 April 2008 the Świebodzin District Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention at the mental hospital. The court held that he was still suffering from severe schizophrenia.
9.  On 22 July and 20 November 2008 the Świebodzin District Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to his mental illness. The applicant’s state of health was confirmed by a medical certificate of 1 October 2008.
10.  In the light of the applicant’s submissions, it is impossible to establish the facts relating to his detention.
11.  On 4 December 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 23 November 2006. The letter was sent while the applicant was detained in the Szamotuły Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy). It bears the following stamp: “District Court in Świebodzin, censored” (Sąd Rejonowy Świebodzin, Cenzurowano), a handwritten date: “28.11.06” and an illegible signature.
4. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Munich, Germany.
5. In 1996 the applicant entered into an agreement with a private company, Skorpion, under which the latter was obliged to construct an apartment in a block house. Following insolvency proceedings instituted against this company, the applicant entered into a debt transfer agreement (“the agreement”) with a private company, KGD, (“the company”), under which the latter accepted responsibility for the obligations of the Skorpion company.
6. On 17 June 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company in the Ivano-Frankivsk Court. She requested the court to declare a part of the agreement null and void and sought a ruling to oblige the company to fulfil the remainder of the agreement.
7.  On 6 September 1999 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court (“the City Court”) allowed the applicant’s claim.
8.  On 16 November 1999 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court[1] quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
9.  On 3 February 2000 the company lodged a counterclaim seeking termination of the agreement on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with the agreement.
10.  On 6 December 2001 the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim and allowed the counterclaim.
11.  On 13 March 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment.
12.  On 11 March 2004 the Supreme Court, following a cassation appeal by the applicant, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.
13.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claims on several occasions. Finally she amended her claims on 22 August 2005. She claimed property rights over the apartment in the house constructed by the company which was occupied by Mr and Mrs K and sought their removal. She also challenged the title documents on this apartment which had been issued to Mr and Mrs K.
14.  On 8 August 2005 the City Court, following a request by the applicant, attached Mr and Mrs K.’s apartment. On 3 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.
15.  On 6 March 2006 the company withdrew its counterclaim.
16.  On 7 March 2006 the City Court found against the applicant.
17.  On 12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.
18.  On 15 September 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated.
19.  The applicant tried to appeal against the decisions given in her case under extraordinary proceedings. However her efforts were to no avail.
20.  According to the records provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings, of forty-five listed hearings, four hearings were adjourned due to the company’s representative’s failure to appear and six due to his requests for adjournment. The domestic courts took no steps to ensure his presence in court. Three hearings were adjourned because the judge sitting in the case was involved in other proceedings. Two hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request and five because the applicant’s representative or lawyer failed to appear or at their request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Rokytno. Until August 1996 he worked as a secondary school teacher.
6.  On 25 July 1995 K. hit the applicant and damaged his teeth.
7.  By two medical reports of 26 July 1995 and 2 February 1996 the applicant was found to have sustained minor injuries.
8.  On an unspecified date the criminal case was opened against K. and subsequently referred to the Yavoriv Town Court (“the Yavoriv court”). In the course of the trial the applicant introduced a claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages on account of his injuries.
9.  On 7 March 1997 the applicant received from a private dentist an estimate of the medical treatment which he had to undergo as a result of his injuries, and submitted it to the court.
10.  On 16 December 1997 the court found K. guilty of intentional infliction of minor bodily injuries and sentenced him to one year’s community service. It relied on the medical reports of 26 July 1995 and 2 February 1996.
11.  The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation on the ground that it had not been lodged in accordance with the procedural formalities, and informed him that he could institute civil proceedings against K.
12.  The above judgment was not appealed against and became final.
13.  On 30 March 1998 the applicant lodged with the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv (“the Galytskyy court”) a civil law claim against K.
14.  The court ordered two medical examinations and stayed the proceedings pending their outcome for the periods of 15 February to 4 March 1999, 27 December 1999 to 21 November 2000, and 26 December 2000 to 21 April 2003. It also made several unsuccessful inquiries to the local police and hospital about the applicant’s medical documents of 1995.
15.  From December 1999 to March 2003 the Lviv Regional Dental Hospital kept the case file for the purpose of the aforementioned examinations. Due to the loss of the relevant medical documents and the considerable lapse of time following the injuries, it found it impossible to estimate the actual costs of the treatment the applicant had had to undergo.
16.  According to the letter of the Galytskyy court to the applicant dated 13 March 2003, the latter had twice failed to appear for medical examinations and had failed to notify the court of a change of his address.
17.  In April 2003 the court adjourned the hearing for about a month due to the defendant’s absence.
18.  On 26 May 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered K. to pay him 2,273 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in compensation for medical expenses as confirmed by the certificate issued to the applicant by a private dentist on 7 March 1997, and UAH 1,500[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court based its judgment on the factual findings of the Yavoriv court in the criminal case against K.
19.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
4.   Ms Yefrosyniya Semenivna Bilokin was born in 1925, Ms Olena Oleksandrivna Shebitko in 1972, Mr Anatoliy Ivanovych Shebitko in 1973, Mr Petro Ivanovych Shebitko in 1967, Mr Sergiy Ivanovych Maksymenko in 1965 and Ms Nataliya Dmytrivna Maksymenko in 1963. All the applicants live in Sudiyivka, Poltava Region.
5.  On 26 July 2001 the Poltava Town Court (“the Town Court”) allowed the applicants’ claim against the collective enterprise and ordered the latter to return to all of them certain agricultural equipment worth 13,382 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. It also awarded them UAH 180[2] in compensation for legal expenses.
6.  On 17 October 2001 the Town Court changed the manner of enforcement of the judgment at the applicants’ request and ordered the debtor to pay them UAH 13,382 instead of providing them with the equipment corresponding to that amount. To secure the claim the court decided to seize the equipment at issue.
7.  On 9 November 2001 enforcement proceedings were instituted.
8.  In April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service seized the debtor’s equipment.
9.  On an unspecified date the judgment was enforced in part, an amount of UAH 2,000[3] being paid to the applicants (each of them received UAH 333[4]).
10.  No further steps seem to have been taken for the enforcement of the judgment.
11.  The applicants complained to the Town Court that the Bailiffs’ Service was taking no action.
12.  On 21 November 2002 the Town Court found their complaint substantiated and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to speed up the sale of the seized property.
13.  In 2004 the applicants introduced a claim for damages against the Bailiffs’ Service at the Zhovtnevyy District Court, Poltava (“the District Court”).
14.  On 5 August 2004 the District Court found for the applicants and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to pay them jointly UAH 11,562[5] as the remaining amount of the award made by the 26 July 2001 judgment, and UAH 1,000[6] each in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It remains unenforced for lack of funds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Rivne, Ukraine.
5.  In March 1976 the Executive Committee of the Rivne Local Council instituted proceedings against the applicant’s father and the applicant’s uncle in the Rivne People’s Court. The Committee sought confiscation of the house owned by them because there had been serious breaches of building regulations. The case was considered on several occasions. On 22 March 1977 the People’s Court ruled that the house should be confiscated. On 28 April 1977 the Rivne Regional Court upheld that judgment. Following that decision the house was confiscated.
6.  The applicant’s father died in 1985. In 1990 the Rivne Local Council sold a part of the house (“the disputed property”) to Ms K.
7.  On 27 January 1993 the Presidium of the Rivne Regional Court, upon an objection (протест) by its President, quashed the judgment of 22 March 1977 and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration.
8.  On 12 April 1993 the Rivne Court dismissed a claim lodged by the Executive Committee of the Rivne Local Council.
9.  On 24 January 1994 the applicant and Mr P. instituted proceedings against Ms K. and the Executive Committee of Rivne Local Council in the Rivne Court, seeking to have the above-mentioned contract of sale declared null and void and claiming ownership of the disputed property.
10.  On 12 April 1994 Mr K., husband of Ms K., lodged a counterclaim, seeking recognition of ownership of the disputed property.
11.  On 25 January 1995 Ms S. and Ms Ko. instituted proceedings against Mr and Ms K., claiming ownership of the disputed property.
12.  In the period from 26 January 1994 to 3 November 1996 the first-instance court scheduled ten hearings.
13.  On 4 November 1996 the court granted a request by the applicant’s lawyer to suspend the proceedings on the ground that the applicant was undergoing treatment. After that date the next hearing was scheduled by the court only for 18 May 1998.
14.  On 25 March 1998 Ms. K died. On 18 May 1998 the court decided to suspend the proceedings until Ms K.’s successors joined the proceedings.
15.  On 18 March 1999 the court decided to join Mr K. as a defendant in the case. On the same day the court joined the consideration of the above proceedings.
16.  Between 19 May 1998 and 22 March 2000 the court scheduled one hearing.
17.  Between 23 March 2000 and 15 October 2001 the court scheduled no hearings.
18.  On 21 March 2002 the court found against the applicant. In particular, the court found unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that he could claim inheritance rights over the disputed property.
19.  On 26 June 2002 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
20.  Between 16 October 2001 and 26 June 2002 the first-instance court and the court of appeal scheduled six hearings. Four hearings were adjourned on account of the one of the parties’ failure to appear or at their request.
21.  On 22 January 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1970, 1966, 1974 and 1970 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır.
5.  The applicants were taken into custody on the following dates: the fifth applicant on 6 January 1994, the first three applicants on 9 March 1994, and the fourth applicant on 19 March 1994. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.
6.  On 20 January 1994 a single judge at the Muş Magistrates’ Court remanded the fifth applicant in custody.
7.  On 31 March 1994 a single judge at the Muş Magistrates’ Court remanded the other applicants in custody.
8.  On 16 March 2004 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
9.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
10.  On 6 June 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 March 2004 in respect of the applicants and remitted the case to the first‑instance court.
11.  On 16 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicants under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and again sentenced them to life imprisonment.
12.  On 20 January 2008 the applicants appealed.
13.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.
6.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1960 respectively. The first applicant lives in Poole and the second applicant lives in Glasgow.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  The applicants were, at the material time, serving members of the United Kingdom armed forces. The first applicant was a trained medical assistant and the second applicant was an electrician by trade. They claim that they were subject to investigations into their sexual orientation and that during the investigations they were asked intimate and explicit questions. The first applicant claims to have been subject to “numerous” investigations during the last two and a half years of his service. During the first such investigation, in 1991, he was interviewed for a period of around nine hours over three-four days. His locker was searched and items were confiscated. Military personnel attended his private home address and sought to question his partner and search his flat. The second applicant alleges that he was questioned in 1989 on five occasions, for about two-three hours per interview, that his cabin was searched and that a number of personal items were confiscated.
9.  Neither applicant was dismissed following the investigations. The first applicant was moved to another ship following the launch of a first investigation, which concluded some 18 months later when he was finally cleared. During a second investigation, he was moved to a royal navy hospital to await the results. For over two years he had been placed in administrative duties and was not permitted to work as a medical assistant as a result of the investigations. The second applicant was removed from his ship following his investigation, and given a job in the barracks for a period. In 1990 he was returned to his ship. Both applicants subsequently resigned from the armed forces. They claim that they were forced to leave because life in the armed forces had become unbearable. Colleagues were aware of the investigations and as a result they were harassed and bullied. The first applicant also complains that he was unable to do the job for which he had been trained.
10.  The applicants submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal arguing constructive dismissal in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. As a result of the House of Lords' judgment in MacDonald (AP) (Appellant) v. Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) 19 June 2003, [2003] UKHL 34, the applicants withdrew their domestic proceedings on 13 November 2003.